Madras High Court
R.Raisingh Antony Raj vs R.Shanthi Stella on 19 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
R.Raisingh Antony raj,
S/o.A.Rasaiya ... Appellant
Vs
R.Shanthi Stella
W/o.Raisingh Antony ..Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family
Courts Act, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed by the learned
Family Court Judge at Chengalpattu in I.D.O.P.No.123/2016 dated
01.11.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondent :Mrs.Thamizharasi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.)
The appellant herein is the petitioner in I.D.O.P.No.123 of 2016 filed
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
by him praying for divorce from the respondent / his wife under Section 10
(1)(ix) and (x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, before the Family Court,
Chengalpet. After full contest, the said IDOP was dismissed. Aggrieved by the
same, the appellant/ husband has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The questions of law that arise for consideration are as follows:
“(i) Whether the learned Family Judge failed to appreciate the oral
and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the appellant herein ?
(ii) Whether the learned Family Judge failed to appreciate the fact
that the respondent/wife abused the appellant/husband and also attempted to
commit suicide which amounts to cruelty ?
(iii) Whether the learned Family Judge had erroneously appreciated
the evidence of R.W.2 (Angelin Theras), who supported the case of the
respondent/wife ?
(iv) Whether the learned Family Judge failed to consider the
harassment made by the respondent/wife and erroneously dismissed the said
IDOP ?”
3. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the
appellant/husband and Mrs.S.Thamizharasi, learned counsel for the
respondent/wife.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
4.It is an admitted fact that the appellant married the respondent on
01.12.1995 at R.C.Church, Kancheepuram, under the Christian Marriage Act
and out of their wedlock, they have got one male and two female children. It is
also an admitted fact that the appellant/husband is a Civil Engineer doing
construction work and the respondent / Wife is a Junior Engineer in PWD. The
facts reveal that after their marriage, both lived together and got three children.
But according to the appellant / husband, trouble started between them from the
year 2013 onwards. The appellant submits that the respondent abused and ill-
treated him in front of others by comparing with her Government job. While so,
on 21.08.2013, she attempted to commit suicide by sending a short message to
him. Immediately, the appellant rushed to that place and admitted her in a
hospital and saved her life. She often voluntarily quarrelled with him and gave a
false complaint against him before the Police Station, which caused mental
agony to him. Inspite of the advice given by her elder sister, she had not changed
her attitude. For the past three years, they have been living separately and the
respondent failed to discharge her duty as a wife and the conduct of the
respondent caused him mental agony. So, he forcibly left the matrimonial home
and was living separately. Hence, he prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty
and desertion.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
5.The respondent / Wife denied all the allegations which are stated
against her and submitted that appellant / husband is addicted to alcohol and
used to come home in an intoxicated mood and harassed her in front of others.
He also developed illegal intimacy with one Soundarya Lakshmi. When the
respondent/wife objected the same, he started to avoid the matrimonial life with
her and also failed to maintain the children born to them. On one occasion, the
appellant refused to give-up the relationship with the said Soundarya Lakshmi.
In order to threaten him, she had sent a message to him that she is going to
commit suicide. She has not done the same with any intention. On the other
hand, she is maintaining all her children with her earnings. In order to live with
the said Soundarya Lakshmi, he filed a divorce petition with false allegations.
Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6.During the trial, on the side of the appellant / husband Exs.P.1 to
P.15 were marked and P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. On the side of the
respondent/wife, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.10 were
marked. Upon considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Family Judge concluded that the appellant/husband failed to prove the case, and
accordingly, the said IDOP was dismissed, against which, he has preferred this
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
appeal.
7.At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the trial Judge failed to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence on the side of the appellant / husband, more particularly, the suicide
attempted by the wife, which has not been taken into consideration by the
learned trial Judge. But, as rightly pointed out by the respondent's counsel, at the
time of the trial, R.W.1/wife, during cross-examination explained the
circumstances which forced her to commit suicide. The evidence of the
respondent/wife is extracted as follows:
“mjw;fhd fhuzk; kDjhuh; jd;Dila mYtyfj;jpy; Ntiy
nra;j nrse;jh;ayl;Rkp vd;w ngz;Zld; jtwhd njhlh;G itj;jpUe;jij
ehd; fz;bj;Jk; kDjhuh; mjw;F nrtp rha;f;fhjjhy; jhd; ehd;
jw;nfhiyf;F Kaw;rp nra;Njd;...... mt;thW jw;nfhiy Kaw;rp
nra;jTld; vd;id fhg;ghw;wp kDfhuh; jhk;guk;
Fnuhk;Ngl;ilapy; cs;s Nfhc}h kUj;Jtkidapy; itj;J rpfpr;ir
mspf;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;> mt;thW rpfpr;ir mspf;fg;gl;ljw;fhd
kUj;Jt Mtzk; jhd; k.rh.M.4 vd;why; rhpjhd;.”
8.It is an admitted fact that one Soundarya Lakshmi was employed in
the office which belongs to the appellant / husband and on several occasions,
the respondent objected to the said illegal relationship with that lady. To prove
the said relationship, on the side of the respondent/wife, she examined her
daughter as R.W.2. In her evidence, she has stated that she saw the photograph
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
of the said Soundarya Lakshmi along with her father celebrating by cutting
cakes. Further, she also stated that in the presence of her mother and herself, the
appellant / her father took the said Soundarya Lakshmi in his vehicle Scooty.
Immediately, her mother / respondent gave a complaint to the police. To prove
this fact, Ex.R.10 was marked, on the side of the respondent /wife which is a
letter written by the husband to wife before the Police Station and the same is
extracted as follows:
“jq;fsJ FLk;g MNyhrfhplk; nrd;W MNyhrid
ngw;w ehd; vd; tPl;bw;F nrd;W vd; Foe;ijfSf;fhf>
Foe;ijfSf;fhd gs;sp fy;tpr; nryTfs; kw;Wk; tPl;bw;F Njitahd
kspif nghUl;fs;> Nf];> ghy; midj;Jk; thq;fp nfhLg;Ngd; vd;W
cWjp mspf;fpNwd; vd;Wk; tPl;by; vt;tpjkhd gpur;ridfSk;
tuhky; ghh;j;Jf; nfhs;Ntd;. vd; mYtyfj;jpy; Ntiy ghh;j;j
ngz;zplk; ve;j tpjkhd njhlh;Gk; itj;Jf; nfhs;s khl;Nld; vd;W
cWjp mspf;fpNwd;.”
9.With the evidence of R.W.2 being daughter of the appellant and
respondent and Ex.R.10, the respondent/wife is able to establish that the
appellant/husband developed illegal intimacy with the said Soundarya Lakshmi,
due to which misunderstanding arose between them, which led to give a
complaint to the Police as well as forced her to attempt suicide. These facts were
really appreciated by the trial Court and there is no need for this Court to
interfere with the same. Therefore, the argument advanced by the appellant that
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced
on the side of the appellant, is unsustainable.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant/husband further argues that
the respondent along with rowdy elements attacked the appellant and abused
him in front of others, which caused mental agony to him. This fact is totally
denied by the respondent / wife stating that properties were purchased with the
help of her income and the appellant/husband refused to maintain the family and
enjoyed the rental amount without utilising the same for the family. Under the
above circumstances, a wordy quarrel arose between them. So, the allegation
levelled against the respondent/wife about cruelty had not been proved by the
appellant/husband. On the other hand, the respondent was able to establish that
her husband developed illegal intimacy with another woman and also failed to
maintain the family. Apart from that, in order to live with that lady, the husband
left the matrimonial home and there is no desertion is caused by the
respondent/wife as alleged in the said IDOP. In order to live with another
woman i.e., Soundarya Lakshmi, the appellant raised false allegations against
the respondent /wife and failed to look after the children and his family.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
11.The appellant/husband approached this Court for divorce by
giving false allegations against the respondent/wife. Considering all the above
facts, the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the said IDOP, which
warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(N.K.K.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
19.08.2021
rri
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
C.M.A.No.784 of 2018
19.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
